EDM-LA Proposal [Archive]

nikolai19

09-26-2003, 03:01 PM

The Mike Comrie situation is at a standstill. LA still does not know the health of Jason Allison and Adam Deadmarsh, and clearly with the Palffy-Stumpel-Frolov line and possibly Robitalle, we only have 4 top 6 forwards. Knowing that EDM is probably going to get rid of him, would this deal be plausible:

To LA: Mike Comrie + pick
To EDM: Denis Grebeshkov + Eric Belanger or Jeff Tambellini

Let's just say that Deadmarsh and Allison are healthy and they play but they still need a top line playmaker. Also maybe Robitalle can play with Stumpel and Palffy. How about this?

To LA: Mike Comrie
To EDM: Alex Frolov + pick

Would either of these deals suffice? I have heard rumblings that Anahiem may have offered Chistov and NYR have offered Lundmark, but LA needs help upfront and Comrie seems destined to be elsewhere...

Legionnaire

09-26-2003, 03:11 PM

No thanks from a Kings perspective. I like Comrie but not enough to give up Frolov, Grebs or Tambellini.

IGM

09-26-2003, 03:31 PM

Yuk.

Malakian#13

09-26-2003, 03:55 PM

you call yourself a kings fan?:) jk but the proposals suck

Chayos

09-26-2003, 03:59 PM

#37-#93-#27*

09-26-2003, 05:53 PM

Legionnaire

09-26-2003, 06:55 PM

Previous Kings GMS would ahve doen that but Dave Taylor wouldn't even consider it.

I don't see why not. It's trades like those that have helped us get the numerous Stanley Cup banners that hang in the rafters of Staples Center today. ;)

GKJ

09-27-2003, 01:18 PM

Edmonton is going to want way too much to include Frolov. and are giving up too much in Grebeshkov and Tambellini. They're two great prospects to give up for a player who isn't even signed.

thome_26

09-27-2003, 01:34 PM

I think a Comrie/Frolov deal would be interesting, but the Oilers don't need more wingers..... Rita/Chimera/Smyth/Isbister/Moreau/Torres is a pretty solid left side

Vyse

09-27-2003, 05:10 PM

To LA: Mike Comrie + pick
To EDM: Denis Grebeshkov + Eric Belanger or Jeff Tambellini

I would accept that I would prefer tambellini thou :D

struckmatch

09-27-2003, 06:07 PM

Seachd

09-27-2003, 06:56 PM

Frolov will be a better player than Mike Comrie. You want Frolov? Start with Hemsky, because thats the value right there.

Hemsky will be a better player than Frolov, so nah, it wouldn't be worth giving him up for that return.

MOOSE55

09-28-2003, 12:39 PM

Hemsky will be a better player than Frolov, so nah, it wouldn't be worth giving him up for that return.
:lol: That's you opinion......You'll find tons of people who will disagree on that one

salostyle

09-28-2003, 12:52 PM

What about a Comrie and Moreau

for

Cammalerri, Gleason, and a 3rd rounder

Does that work better???

Reaper45

09-28-2003, 01:39 PM

What about a Comrie and Moreau

for

Cammalerri, Gleason, and a 3rd rounder

Does that work better???

That one does. :handclap:

struckmatch

09-28-2003, 03:34 PM

:lol: That's you opinion......You'll find tons of people who will disagree on that one

Exactly, Frolov is farther along in development as well, Ales Hemsky could easily just be hype, as he hasn't played many games in the NHL yet.

Not taking anything away from Hemsky, but Frolov IMO has a lot more potential.

G-Double

09-28-2003, 06:04 PM

:lol: That's you opinion......You'll find tons of people who will disagree on that one
And you could just as easily find "tons of people" who will AGREE with him...

Frolov will likely be a better two way forward as he is much more well rounded at this point, but i thinik Hemsky definitely has a higher offensive potential...will he reach it? only time will tell, but if they both reach their potetntial then i think Hemsky will be slightly better and he will be the type of player that makes his teamtes/linemates look good even if they don't deserve it.

Dr_Gonz0

09-28-2003, 10:13 PM

What about a Comrie and Moreau

for

Cammalerri, Gleason, and a 3rd rounder

Does that work better???

I like this a lot from an edmonton stand point:

Moreau = 3rd, while Comrie lands us 2 top prospects, and we all know how KLowe loves his prospects. I have heard Cammalerri is a power forward style player(and a centre to boot), but do not know much about Gleason other than he is a defensemen, but supposedly fairly good. At 6'1" and 214 lbs, if he has a mean streak, could fill Jason Smith's shoes once he prices his way out of Edmonton. A lil 411 please. :)

andora

09-28-2003, 10:18 PM

frolovs will shoot the black thing right? if so i'll take frolov

Fishhead

09-28-2003, 10:34 PM

Legionnaire

09-28-2003, 11:44 PM

frolovs will shoot the black thing right? if so i'll take frolov

He's working on it. He definately needs to work on his shot array in order to be successful though.

Legionnaire

09-28-2003, 11:56 PM

Gleason has been playing well in camp, and could help in EDM.

Cammalleri is anything but a power forward like player though. He's more like a Comrie clone - same size and style of play.

They even went to the same school. ;)

FacelessButcher

09-29-2003, 06:17 AM

I like this a lot from an edmonton stand point:

Moreau = 3rd, while Comrie lands us 2 top prospects, and we all know how KLowe loves his prospects. I have heard Cammalerri is a power forward style player(and a centre to boot), but do not know much about Gleason other than he is a defensemen, but supposedly fairly good. At 6'1" and 214 lbs, if he has a mean streak, could fill Jason Smith's shoes once he prices his way out of Edmonton. A lil 411 please. :)
Moreau>3rd we got a 2nd and 3rd for Grier and two 2nd's for Hecht I don't get why some think so lowly of him, his contribution to the Oilers is huge in the room and on the ice.
Cammalleri + Gleason>Comrie = Moreau>3rd pick
I like this trade for the future but of course it does not help our current situation that much, as I think the Oilers are planning on finishing strong on our 25th aniversary and last year before the holdout. but on the flip side I think this trade is subperb for the Oilers future if the Oilers store their extra money in the piggy bank for now and after the new cba I am sure they can keep both Gleason and Cammalleri for a long time. With the impending cba holdout all rookies have extra time to develop while not sacrificing the Oiler's NHL season which makes the deal even more interesting, the Oilers constantly trading for the future is kind of annoying but I think this is a deal that u can't pass up, If I was Lowe I would say let's do it up.

Hemsky vs. Frolov huh? Well if on the outside chance Comrie signed back from an Oiler perspective I would trade Hemsky for Frolov in a heartbeat. I would say their equal until proven otherwise in the future, it's more a matter of what your team needs a sniper,two-way forward(Frolov) or a play-making,high offensive potential, sick passer(Hemsky). If Comrie does not sign which I am sure he won't I would keep Hemsky who is already attached to the team and I'd attempt to get a player who can put his passes into the net.

nikolai19

09-29-2003, 08:32 AM

Just so everyone knows:

Cammalleri has a sprained MCL that he suffered in an exhibition game. He is not supposed to be back for another 4-5 weeks. To me, that would make him unlikely tradeable. Also he is not a power forward by any strecth. He is about 5' 9" and goes about 180 lbs. Pretty much like Comrie.

Gleason right now, has a shot at making the Kings opening day roster because Miller, Ziska, Grebeshkov are all injured and Kuznetsov is having Visa issues.

LA would probably not be interested in a guy like Moreau for the simple fact that LA is loaded with 3rd liners.

Maybe these two teams are not good trading partners.

BTW, my .02, Hemsky = Frolov, until they have proven themselves otherwise.

no name

09-30-2003, 07:56 PM

What about a Comrie and Moreau

for

Cammalerri, Gleason, and a 3rd rounder

Does that work better???

Sold. Go Kings!

kingbrath

10-01-2003, 09:43 AM

Hemsky will be a better player than Frolov, so nah, it wouldn't be worth giving him up for that return.

hhaahahahahahahahahaahha..............aaaaaaaahaha hahahahahahahaha :lol:
omg that is funny

USC Trojans

10-01-2003, 09:52 AM

hhaahahahahahahahahaahha..............aaaaaaaahaha hahahahahahahaha :lol:
omg that is funny

That's your opinion.
You King fans think Frolov is God...and us Oiler fans think Hemsky is God.
I think they're both about the same at the moment.

So now...how 'bout that Dustin Brown guy...looking at his preseason games (I live in LA), I would LOVE to have him in an Oiler jersey.

USC Trojans

10-01-2003, 04:32 PM

Soon Philly fans are gonna be saying "I wish we drafted him instead of Carter". Just watch :D

You might match Frolov with Hemsky but you sure as hell arn't gonna match the value of Brown right now.

Oh yeah, you can bet Philly and NY are kicking their own butts for not selecting this kid now. Brown looks flat out awesome. I'm surprised how mature of a player he is at such a young age....

.....so how 'bout Comrie + Rita for Dustin Brown? :D

mowthecat

10-01-2003, 05:39 PM

:lol: That's you opinion......You'll find tons of people who will disagree on that one

:joker: :lol:

And you'd find lots who will disagree with you.

Sorry but the Oil dont need left wingers thanks. Especially trading a 30 goal 60 point man to get one.

Your comment could explain an earlier reply relating to the number of Stanley Cup banners fluttering in the LA breeze though.

mowthecat

10-01-2003, 05:42 PM

Exactly, Frolov is farther along in development as well, Ales Hemsky could easily just be hype, as he hasn't played many games in the NHL yet.

Not taking anything away from Hemsky, but Frolov IMO has a lot more potential.

I see. Both have played one year in the league and got simlar points even though Hemsky played about 20 fewer games. Yep he's all hype and Frolov is all world alright. :joker:

Lets not even mention that Hemsky is better than a year younger.

mowthecat

10-01-2003, 05:45 PM

Frolov doesn't lack play making. There was time last year when he mad Steve Heinze keep a job in the NHL for a while. Frolov isn't jsut a better two-way player but he also brings much more to tthe table then Hemsky.
Frolov is the type of player theat makes room with fro his linemates. Hemsky is much more flashy but Frolovs strenght,size, and work eithic make up for it.

Im not saying Frolov is the better player but hemsky isn't either.

Give me anyone and I'm happy.

Doubt we see any of them traded anytime soon.

Please. Both got 30 /31 points but Hemsky did it in 20 fewer games. Yeah Frolovs all over him. Ever seen Hemsky play? Sure doesnt sound like it.

mowthecat

10-01-2003, 05:48 PM

mowthecat

10-01-2003, 05:50 PM

hhaahahahahahahahahaahha..............aaaaaaaahaha hahahahahahahaha :lol:
omg that is funny

If you really think it nwas that funny then perhaps you truly are a California hockey fan. Now THATS funny. :joker:

FacelessButcher

10-01-2003, 05:52 PM

dude chill out they both bring something different to the table if u want to make boasts wait a year or two when we see the better of the two start to emerge.

mowthecat

10-01-2003, 05:58 PM

dude chill out they both bring something different to the table if u want to make boasts wait a year or two when we see the better of the two start to emerge.

Exactly right but right at this point its Hemsky=.59 PPG and Frolov=.39PPG. Sure doesnt sound to me like Frolov is so much better.

kingbrath

10-02-2003, 10:10 AM

If you really think it nwas that funny then perhaps you truly are a California hockey fan. Now THATS funny. :joker:

first off, I was laughing becuase it is WAY to early to tell which player is better so the argument is pointless...and calling me a true california hockey fan is kinda funny since the guy who pretty much made hockey in california, also won 4 cups for the oilers....which by the way still seems to make some of you Oilers fans horny becuase the rest of us havent heard the end of it for nearly 20 years

oilers_guy_eddie

10-02-2003, 10:17 AM

Actually, that was 4 cups for Gretzky in Edmonton. How many did he win in LA? oh well, at least he didn't do jail-time. :D

kingbrath

10-02-2003, 02:45 PM

Actually, that was 4 cups for Gretzky in Edmonton. How many did he win in LA? oh well, at least he didn't do jail-time. :D

zing!

no name

10-02-2003, 04:08 PM

Tell me I didnt just read 6 out of 7 straight posts of MowtheCat rambling the exact same points in every one of them. Tell Me.

kingbrath

10-02-2003, 07:10 PM

Tell me I didnt just read 6 out of 7 straight posts of MowtheCat rambling the exact same points in every one of them. Tell Me.

I think he just wants to hit the 100 post mark instead of making any good arguments !!

FacelessButcher

10-02-2003, 07:17 PM

I think he just wants to hit the 100 post mark instead of making any good arguments !!
If hes a true Oiler fan hes striving for 99 not 100

Jon Burke

10-02-2003, 07:27 PM

Someone clear this up for me - why doesn't Comrie have good trade value? He's a young player who's proven he can score goals and has superstar potential, yet, IMO, a lot of these proposals seem to have people thinking he's *only* worth a defenseman and marginal prospect or something. The kid's a great player, why are so many people lowballing for him?

Perhaps this isn't the right place to put such a question, because both the originally proposed deals are very doable in my opinion. But someone tell me why they seem to think that an unproven defense prospect and a third line center or a good prospect would net MORE than a proven talent with star potential?

thome_26

10-02-2003, 07:29 PM

Frolov and Hemsky are probably pretty close valuewise, but thats completely pointless.... IMO Frolov is a superior two way player, but has no where near the offensive potential. People were talking about Comrie not shooting the puck - thats because when you're 19 and you have Ryan Smyth on your line you don't. No bull$h*t, but Hemsky is the most talented Oiler I've seen since you know who left (yes, smart a$$'s, 99). I just got home from the Oilers 7-4 win, and this kid is auto-matic when he's got a good chance. He creates so much room out there because no defensman dare challenges him, as they know how dumb they'll look after. But to Frolov, he has way above average defensive awareness for his age, and even if he scores less then Hemsky he'll be pretty close in value IMO because i could see him being a Calder finalist some day. Side note though, Hemsky isn't as bad defensively as some people like to think - and he's not a soft player.

Vyse

10-02-2003, 08:40 PM

but has no where near the offensive potential. People were talking about Comrie not shooting the puck

i think you meant to type in hesmky there not comrie

mowthecat

10-02-2003, 09:02 PM

first off, I was laughing becuase it is WAY to early to tell which player is better so the argument is pointless...and calling me a true california hockey fan is kinda funny since the guy who pretty much made hockey in california, also won 4 cups for the oilers....which by the way still seems to make some of you Oilers fans horny becuase the rest of us havent heard the end of it for nearly 20 years

I'm aware that Gretzky "made" hockey in California but its really too bad he couldnt stick around long enough to give you some insight.

Lets see now. Oilers won a cup after he left didnt they?Refresh my memory on how many LA won with him in the lineup. Cant say as I got too horny about him leaving when I wasnt particularly a huge fan while he played here.Living in Calgary will do that to ya.

Just an FYI. Hemsky got another 4 points tonight against Calgary. One goal 3 assists. Yeah he's looking like a second year bust. :joker:

mowthecat

10-02-2003, 09:03 PM

Tell me I didnt just read 6 out of 7 straight posts of MowtheCat rambling the exact same points in every one of them. Tell Me.

Its tough getting the point across to a couple of "redwoods"

mowthecat

10-02-2003, 09:04 PM

I think he just wants to hit the 100 post mark instead of making any good arguments !!

I think I made my point rather well especially considering you havent been able to come back and debate the point.

kingbrath

10-03-2003, 05:38 AM

I think I made my point rather well especially considering you havent been able to come back and debate the point.

what points is that...I said it is yet to be seen who is better and all you said is...."duh stupid california hockey fan, Hemsky is better, duh he's an Oiler and got 4 points in a preseason game" if you want to debate something then maybe you should really think hard and maybe something useful will come out of that mouth of yours, until then...go post on the Oilers board , im sure they will support your hard on for Ales Hemsky

mowthecat

10-03-2003, 01:20 PM

what points is that...I said it is yet to be seen who is better and all you said is...."duh stupid california hockey fan, Hemsky is better, duh he's an Oiler and got 4 points in a preseason game" if you want to debate something then maybe you should really think hard and maybe something useful will come out of that mouth of yours, until then...go post on the Oilers board , im sure they will support your hard on for Ales Hemsky

Debate this skippy. The original point was just how much better Frolov is as a prospect than Hemsky. I quote myself here and state " Frolov=.39 ppg----Hemsky .59 ppg. Care to tell me how that makes Frolov a better prospect considering how he's also a year older????

Lets hear your fabulous rebuttal surfer dude or better yet maybe you could keep your piehole flapping on the LA board since facts arent your strong point.

kingbrath

10-03-2003, 08:12 PM

if you look at the main proposal, or the "original point" of this thread, Hemsky was not even involved until someone said lets trade Hemsky for Frolov...which is just a retarded proposal to begin with.......Hemsky and Frolov are both great prospects and only time will tell who makes a bigger impact, but until then lets just agree to disagree and put and end to this senseless argument!

oilers_guy_eddie

10-04-2003, 09:03 AM

The start of the pissing contest was obviously this exchange here...

Hemsky will be a better player than Frolov, so nah, it wouldn't be worth giving him up for that return.

hhaahahahahahahahahaahha..............aaaaaaaahaha hahahahahahahaha :lol:
omg that is funny

...you have to admit: if your point was "time will tell", you might have been better off expressing it with a few less "ahhahahahaha".

This is no longer serving any purpose. Both of you guys should knock it off.